Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

Hungary Removed "National Security Threat" from Seven Security Guards — and Did It Before Court

Budapest annulled deportation and Schengen bans for all seven Oschadbank employees and removed their data from registries. The decision was made not based on a court verdict, but because the country's own constitutional protection body withdrew the accusations.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 18, 2026 · 2 min read

Hungary Removed "National Security Threat" from Seven Security Guards — and Did It Before Court
Фото: Facebook-сторінка Ощадбанку

On May 18, the General Directorate of the Hungarian Police for Alien Affairs cancelled the deportation decision and three-year ban on stay in the Schengen area for all seven Oschadbank employees. The Hungarian side also ordered the immediate removal of the relevant records from state registers.

What happened in March

On March 5, Hungarian special services stopped two Oschadbank armored vehicles in Budapest that were transporting cash and gold from Austrian Raiffeisen Bank to Ukraine — $40 million, €35 million and nine kilograms of gold. Seven security guards were detained, deported the next day, and banned from entering the Schengen area for three years.

Budapest's official versions kept changing: first — suspicion of money laundering, then — "possible connection with Ukrainian war mafia." The Hungarian side even released a video as evidence. Oschadbank established that Hungarian subtitles were added to the 2025 recording, where a security guard's words "it can be seen what you are doing" were transformed into "corrupt money can be seen."

"The complete cancellation of decisions regarding our employees is confirmation of Oschadbank's righteousness. We protected not only the rights of our people, but also the reputation of a state financial institution that operates exclusively within international law."

Yuriy Katsion, Chairman of Oschadbank Board

How the crisis was resolved

Two events unfolded in parallel. Oschadbank filed criminal and civil lawsuits in Hungarian courts. And parliamentary elections took place in Hungary: Peter Madar's "Tisa" party received over 53% of votes and formed a new government instead of Orban.

  • May 6 — Zelenskyy announced the complete return of cash and gold to Ukrainian territory.
  • May 18 — the Hungarian constitutional protection body officially withdrew conclusions about "threat to national security" from Ukrainian citizens. This was sufficient for the cancellation of all restrictions.

A key point: Budapest did not wait for the court proceedings to conclude. The Hungarian side retreated on its own — before the verdict.

Compensation remains open

Andriy Pyshny, Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine, welcomed the return of assets but emphasized: the actions of the Hungarian side were unlawful, so Ukraine would demand compensation. Oschadbank itself still has active lawsuits in Hungarian courts.

Hungary returned the people, the money, and now — clean registry records. But there is still no official answer to the question of who authorized the video falsification and who signed the conclusions about "threat to national security." If Madar's new government opens an internal investigation into the actions of special services during the Orban era — this will be a test of whether a change of power in Hungary means a change of rules of the game for Ukraine.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026